UNITED STATES V. NOBLE

• Citation: 237 U. S. 74
• Decision Date: 05 April 1915
• Court: United States Supreme Court

United States v. Noble

No. 127

Argued March l, 2, 1915

Decided April 5, 1915

237 U.S. 74

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The Quapaw Indians are still under National tutelage; the guardianship of the United States continues notwithstanding the citizenship conferred upon allottees.

Where Congress has imposed restrictions upon alienation of an allotment, the United States has capacity to sue for the purpose of setting aside conveyances or contracts transferring such restrictions.

Restrictions under the Act of March 2, 1895, being for a specified period, were absolute, and bound the land for that period, whether in the hands of the allottee or his heirs, except as to leasing it for the specified terms permitted by the Act of June 10, 1896, or by the supplemental Act of June 7, 1897; neither of those acts gave the allottee or his heirs any power to dispose of his or their interest in the lands subject to the lease or any part of it.

Assignments of interest in rents and royalties which pertained to the reversion of the land of 1896 and 1897 are invalid.

Rents and royalties already accrued from lands are personal property, but those to accrue are a part of the estate, remaining in the lessor.

"Overlapping leases" of Indian allotments are abnormal, and the practice of making them facilitates abuses in dealing with ignorant and inexperienced Indians.

Page 237 U. S. 75

The rule that a general power to lease for not exceeding specified period, without saying either in possession or on reversion, only authorizes a lease in possession, and not in futuro, applies to the power given allottee Indians by the Acts of 1896 and 1897, and leases made for the full period subject to an existing and partly expired lease for the same number of years are unauthorized and void.

197 F. 292 reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

The government brings this appeal to review a decree of the circuit court of appeals which affirmed a decree dismissing, upon demurrer, its suit as against the appellees. 197 F. 292.

The suit was instituted against the appellees and others to set aside certain mining leases of an Indian allotment, and assignments of rents and royalties, upon the ground that they were procured in fraud of the allottee, and were in violation of the restriction against alienation imposed by Congress. The land in question had been allotted to Charley Quapaw Blackhawk a member of the Quapaw tribe of Indians, under the Act of March 2, 1895, c. 188, 28 Stat. 876, 907. Patent was issued on September 26, 1896. The Act of 1895 contained the following restriction:

"Provided that said allotments shall be inalienable for a period of twenty-five years from and after the date of said patents. "

Page 237 U. S. 76

By the Act of June 10, 1896, c. 398, 29 Stat. 321, 331, Congress authorized the allottees of lands within the limits of the Quapaw Agency "to lease the same for a term not exceeding three years for farming purposes, or five years for mining or business purposes." A further authorization -- the one here involved -- was made by the Act of June 7, 1897, c. 3, 30 Stat. 62, 72, which was as follows:

"That the allottees of land within the limits of the Quapaw Agency, Indian Territory, are hereby authorized to lease their lands, or any part thereof, for a term not exceeding three years, for farming or grazing purposes, or ten years for mining or business purposes. And said allottees and their lessees and tenants shall have the right to employ such assistants, laborers, and help from time to time as they may deem necessary: Provided that, whenever it shall be made to appear to the Secretary of the Interior that, by reason of age or disability, any such allottee cannot improve or manage his allotment properly and with benefit to himself, the same may be leased, in the discretion of the Secretary, upon such terms and conditions as shall be prescribed by him. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this are hereby repealed."

The bill alleges that the allottee made the following mining leases of the allotted lands, and assignments of rents and royalties, to-wit:

(1) Lease, dated January 11, 1902, to A. W. Abrams, for ten years from date, in consideration of the sum of , and a royalty of five percent of the market value of all minerals mined or removed (except gas, for which there was to be paid per annum for each paying well), with the proviso that there should be a minimum rental of a year in case the royalties did not exceed that amount. On August 13, 1903, the lease was assigned by Abrams to the Iowa & Oklahoma Mining Company.

(2) Lease, dated August 24, 1903, to A. W. Abrams,

Page 237 U. S. 77

for ten years from date, in consideration of , and of royalties which were the same as in first lease save that the minimum rental was a year. This lease was assigned on November 2, 1904, to the Iowa & Oklahoma Mining Company.

(3) Lease, dated March 25, 1905, to L. C. Jones, and the appellee A. J. Thompson, for ten years from date, for and five percent royalty. It was stated that the lease was subject to the first lease above mentioned. The interest of Jones was assigned to the appellee A. J. Thompson, on July 31, 1905.

(4) Lease, dated April 4, 1905, to the Iowa & Oklahoma Mining Company, for ten years from date, for , with the same royalties as in the first lease above mentioned and with minimum rental of a year.

(5) Lease, dated May 12, 1906, to the same company, for ten years from date, and with the same consideration as that of the lease described in paragraph (4). It was provided that "this lease and all former leases above referred to shall run concurrently," the lessee being entitled to elect under which of the leases it would operate.

(6) Lease, dated July 28, 1906, to the same company, for the term of twenty years from date for , with the same royalties and minimum rental as those reserved in the preceding lease described in paragraph (5).

(7) Grant or assignment, dated August 16, 1902, to the appellee Charles F. Noble, of all the allottee's "right, title, and interest in and to the royalty, rent, and proceeds" of the mining lease dated January 11, 1902, made to Abrams, described in paragraph (1). It was further agreed by said instrument that, if the Abrams' lease "should be surrendered and become void the within lease should hold good for the period of ten years." On the same date, Noble assigned "a one-half interest in the above-described instrument" to John M. Cooper.

(8) Assignment, dated February 21, 1906, to the appellees

Page 237 U. S. 78

A. S. Thompson and v. E. Thompson. It recited a judgment, in a suit against Noble and Cooper, decreeing that the allottee was the owner

"of two and one-half percentage of the entire product mined from said land and sold on or subsequent to the 31st day of January, 1906, and up to and including the 11th day of January, 1912,"

and assigned to the above-mentioned appellees "an undivided one-half interest in and to the said judgment for royalties," that is, "one and one-fourth percent of the whole product on said lands" during the period covered by the first lease to Abrams, described in paragraph (1).

The bill further averred that the allottee, Charles Quapaw Blackhawk, was a full-blood Indian, born in 1835, unable "to read, or write, or understand intelligently the English language," an "ignorant and uneducated child of nature," old and infirm, and wholly incapacitated for the transaction of business; that the lands were worth approximately 0,000; that, on January 11, 1902, when the first lease was made, the lands had not been prospected and the value for mining purposes was uncertain, and that the consideration mentioned in that lease was "equitable and sufficient;" that immediately thereafter, the lessee (the defendant Abrams) caused the lands to be drilled and prospected and found "large, valuable, and paying bodies of lead and zinc ore;" that, for the five years preceding the filing of the bill (July, 1909), there had been "a number of concentrating plants or so-called ore mills located upon the said land, and in operation," and that "the actual value of the output thereof, when in operation," was in excess of ,000 a year; that, in 1905, and before, the defendant Abrams, through his assignee, the Iowa & Oklahoma Mining Company, had sublet to other mining companies portions of the lands in consideration of a royalty of fifteen percent of the market value of the ores mined, which was a reasonable royalty, and that the transactions narrated in the

Page 237 U. S. 79

bill (apart from the first lease to Abrams) were "inequitable and unconscionable" and a fraud upon the allottee.

The validity of the first lease was conceded by the government, but it was alleged that all the other leases and the assignments were in violation of the express restriction subject to which the allotment was made.

Demurrers were filed by all the defendants. The circuit court held that the government was not entitled to impeach the transactions upon the ground of fraud, but could challenge the validity of the several instruments as being in violation of the statutory restriction. It is not important here to consider the disposition made of the leases described in paragraphs (2), (4), (5), and (6), as these are not involved in this appeal. It is sufficient to say that the demurrers of Abrams and the Iowa & Oklahoma Mining Company were overruled, and that those of the appellees were sustained. United States v. Abrams, 181 F. 847. As to the latter, the bill was dismissed, and the decree to that effect was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, as already stated.

We have, then, the question of the validity of the lease and assignments described in paragraphs (3), (7), and (8).

The Quapaws are still under national tutelage. The government maintains an agency, and, pursuant to the treaty of May 13, 1833, 7 Stat. 424, an annual...